Elements of healthcare delivery required to facilitate the clinical governance of hospital pharmacy services: a document review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Clinical governance of hospital pharmacy services aims to ensure the delivery of pharmaceutical care that maximizes positive outcomes for patients. Good clinical governance incorporates service-related data to evaluate and improve care delivery. National-level clinical governance frameworks available in Australia provide limited information on auditable metrics to evaluate hospital pharmacy services. This study reviews healthcare governance documents to determine the goals and desirable elements of healthcare delivery and the information to measure to inform the clinical governance of hospital pharmacy services. METHODS: A purposive online search was conducted to identify healthcare governance documents describing the clinical governance approach for general healthcare and hospital pharmacy services in Australia, New Zealand, England, Canada and the United States. Documents for general healthcare settings were reviewed to identify the goals and desirable elements of healthcare delivery. Pharmacy governance documents were then reviewed to contextualize the identified elements of care to hospital pharmacy services and to determine the information to measure to inform clinical governance. RESULTS: The objective of delivering quality healthcare was included in all documents. Quality healthcare was described in the documents as healthcare that is patient-centred, safe, effective, integrated, timely, equitable, efficient and reliable. These factors were considered desirable elements of healthcare delivery that promote positive patient outcomes. The performance measures to evaluate and improve hospital pharmacy services delivery covered pharmacists' clinical activities, pharmaceutical care outcomes, stakeholder feedback and medication incidents and risks. CONCLUSIONS: Measuring the extent to which the desirable elements of care are evident in the performance of clinical pharmacists' activities and the associated outcomes of care may provide useful information to facilitate the clinical governance of hospital pharmacy services.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.035 | 0.067 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.025 | 0.021 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".